thinkbroadband

Is better broadband roll-out now just a political football?
Tuesday 12 November 2013 12:38:55 by
Andrew Ferguson

For those of us who generally just worry about the technical side of
roll-outs the fighting it is frustrating that since the National Audit Office
and Public Accounts Committee meeting these events and political batters are
looking to become the centre piece of broadband roll-outs rather the progress
that is being made. BT is being painted as evil baron and all too often
community led solutions get coverage that make them look like persistent
complainers rather than broadband innovators.

Computer Weekly has covered some comments made by Bill Murphy of BT over
coffee just before an event at BT headquarters in London on Monday 11th
November.

"Speaking at an event in central London this morning, Bill Murphy, managing
director of next-generation access for the telecoms giant, said the full-speed
and coverage template, detailing who would and would not be getting superfast
broadband as part of the government scheme, would remain under lock and key,
despite previous statements from BT to the contrary.

When asked why, Murphy said: “Because it’s commercially sensitive
information. You can publish [coverage] maps and most councils are doing that…
[but] you never know until you get there. We have a plan and a view but you do
not know until you do the surveys and build and it is subject to change."

Reading the quote it is difficult to interpret without knowing the original
question, following up via twitter we have been told it was "can councils
publish the full SCR with postcodes?". The answer does not to us appear to
reflect a change in position, but the standard on going position that the
roll-outs are fluid in nature, in the same way that in the commercial roll-out
some cabinets have vanished from the roll-out as obstacles appear e.g. the
quote for power supply is beyond original estimates. The push for value for
money, which is a mantra repeated constantly on the projects, means that as the
aim is for a percentage coverage if one area proves costly that it might be
bypassed and another cheaper to enable area enabled.

With the existence of the much smaller RCBF scheme that has just £20m to
spend and was originally meant to target communities in the notional final 10%
then this desire to be fluid and react to changes in circumstances is making
life very difficult for those projects. Could potential RCBF areas be
identified and excluded from the larger BDUK roll-out, yes, is that what the
people in those areas want? Or what some operators who would like some public
funding want?

We chased BT for an official comment on what Bill Murphy is attributed as
saying and received:

"As we said at the PAC committee hearing, we are happy if councils wish to
publish their indicative coverage maps, even if they are heavily caveated at
this stage. This was a request from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media
and Sport, and one that we have been proactively supporting.

As for postcode data, until our very detailed survey work is complete there
is no definitive or accurate postcode data that can be provided. Any data
available now will undoubtedly change, so local authorities would have raised
hopes only to have dashed them. They would also have indicated that some areas
may be left out when it is too early to be certain."

BT Statement

Openreach could improve its coverage information and be a lot more
pro-active in announcing progress updates once the spades break the tarmac (we
have seen cabinets delayed by people objecting to a cabinet once stood or
unexpected issues, e.g. power cabling where it should not be, so even if a
cabinet is stood you cannot be certain of the timeline), but the more Openreach
talks the more the impression is given that BT is the place to go to for the
faster broadband, thus enhancing the myth of BT Infinity being the only service
in BDUK areas.

What is clear is that our elected political masters could have ensured that
if the public wanted 100% clear roll-out data that this was a condition of the
contracts. This may have made negotiations tougher and possibly resulted in BT
wanting extra clauses and time to plan ahead of the contract signings to ensure
they do not commit to something.

The growing pressure of opinion against BT makes one wonder if there are
millions who would have preferred that Openreach was created as a single
National Broadband Authority back in 2006, rather than a business group within
the larger BT operation. If this was created as a standalone PLC, then the
compensation to BT shareholders would have been punitive, unless the large
shareholder groups could have been convinced to accept new shares in this NBA.
The other alternative of the operator becoming a nationalised industry would
have been even more expensive even before it started to deliver any broadband
improvements.

At the end of the day, the problem is basically this, with the limited
spending from the public in what each of us is willing to spend on broadband,
combined with the desire to get the biggest bang per buck for public money and
large investors wanting a clear path to a short term ROI we are in a triage
situation, where not everyone can be treated and someone is making that horrid
decision of which communities get a better service and which don't.

Comments

Posted by
csimon over 3 years ago
Why is it commercially sensitive? The whole point of BDUK is that it is half public money to fill in the areas that commercial plans won't go to. Meanwhile, not publicising intended plans means that the "final 10%" are left in limbo for a few years more - at least if they knew it wasn't likely to happen then they could get satellite and benefit from that over the next few years. "Detailed surveying" is a cop-out - apparently my road has been in the process of "detailed surveying" for about 8 months.

Posted by
mikejp over 3 years ago
To continue your 'triage' analogy a little further, Andrew, the problem for many is that they are sat in A&E for hours but no-one will tell them they will not get treatment in the end.

Posted by
Michael_Chare over 3 years ago
Kent have said in the past that they would upgrade all cabinets. Given that I see little reason for them not publishing expected performance data at full post code level. Doing this would make it easier for competitors to enter the market.

Posted by
godsell4 over 3 years ago
The information would be commercially sensitive if there was any competition in the business, as this is a monopoly there is no competition hence it has no affect on the economics, hence it is not sensitive. BTO, BDUK and UK.gov have a moral duty to publish this information to justify why BT should be given our money to further their own PLC.

Posted by
csimon over 3 years ago
It's all got confused with Openreach doing bout a commercial rollout and a publcily-funded one at the same time. It's funny that they are so protective about aresa that they've always said are unviable - wonder if that was always an excuse & now see them as something profitable. BTW interesting news item today: www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24919148 - BT/OR seem to have quashed some community projects.

Posted by
csimon over 3 years ago
bout = both

Posted by
Michael_Chare over 3 years ago
There are a number of competitors in Kent: Vfast, Call Flow Solutions, Gigaclear, Virgin. Certainly BT are in a dominant position.

Posted by
herdwick over 3 years ago
"The information would be commercially sensitive if there was any competition in the business, as this is a monopoly there is no competition hence it has no affect on the economics, hence it is not sensitive" - and presumably it serves no purpose at all. The line checker will tell you when you can order.

Posted by
themanstan over 3 years ago
BDUK was a competitve environment, simply that competitors eventually withdrew midway through bidding process. The rules for BDUK commercially sensitive information would have been fixed and signed up to by all parties. Irrespective of the fact that once the competition pulled out the contractual obligations for commercially sensitive information would still be in force. So whoever broke the contract would get a big sue-ball in the face.

Posted by
csimon over 3 years ago
@herdwick: "The line checker will tell you when you can order". The line checker does not tell you if you're not included and can therefore find another solution for anything more than 0.5Mbps, or apply for a grant for which you've got a limited time to do so which will run out before the end of BDUK.